Skip to comments.Dover, PA Evolution Trial [daily thread for 07 Oct]
Posted on 10/07/2005 7:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
To keep this all in one daily thread, here are links to two articles in the York Daily Record (with excerpts from each), which has been doing a great job of reporting on the trial:
Forrest cross-examination a rambling wonder.
About the time that Richard Thompson, head law guy at the Thomas More center and chief defender of the Dover Area School Board, started his third year of cross-examination of philosopher Barbara Forrest, it was easy to imagine that at that moment, everyone in the courtroom, including Forrest, who doesnt believe in God, was violating the separation of church and court by appealing to God for it to please, Lord, just stop.
It wouldnt have been so bad if there was a point to the ceaseless stream of questions from Thompson designed to elicit Lord knows what. Hed ask her the same question 18 different times, expecting, I guess, a different answer at some point. And he never got it.
Thompson, who said hes a former prosecutor, should have known better. Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and expert on the history of the intelligent design creationist movement, was a lot smarter than, say, some poor, dumb criminal defendant.
Here is a summation of Forrests testimony: She examined the history of the intelligent design movement and concluded that its simply another name for creationism. And what led her to that conclusion? The movement leaders own words. They started out with a religious proposition and sought to clothe it in science. The result was similar to putting a suit on your dog.
Thompson was in the midst of asking Forrest whether she had heard a bunch of things that some people had said to indicate, well, to indicate whether shed heard a bunch of things that some people had said, I guess, when the topic came up.
Thompson asked whether she had ever heard a statement by some guy frankly, this one caught me off-guard and I didnt catch the guys name who said that belief in evolution can be used to justify cross-species sex.
This came on the same day that Thompson grilled Forrest about her opposition to the so-called Santorum amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that seemed to encourage, sort of, the teaching of intelligent design. Our U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is a friend of the intelligent design people.
He also has a strange obsession with bestiality, commenting that court decisions that uphold the right to privacy would lead to naturally, and you know you were thinking it man-on-dog sex.
Dover science teachers testified that they fought references to intelligent design.
Defense attorney Richard Thompson [he represents the school board] said differing opinions on whether teachers and administration worked in cooperation to create the Dover Area School Districts statement on intelligent design comes down to perspective.
pasta be upon him
Well of course it can. However, if you want to use the color of law to pursuade children that the questioning of science by religeous people on overt or covert religeous grounds is science, than you are committing fraud, and the civilization conspiracy will eventually track you to ground--as is occuring in the courtroom this thread is dedicated to.
"Our side doesn't have a history of burning its scientific opponents at the stake"
Oh Yes You Do! those that do the burning are alway full of themselves...so convinced of their superior humanity, and the lack of it in the burnee! That pretty much describes the views of the religion haters around here.
You've given up debating creationists entirely, then?
Technically, it should take the form of a partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, so that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the states. It didn't, originally, but was interpreted to apply to the states via the court-created doctrine of Incorporation.
You've cracked the code.
Free scientific inquiry is the best idea, Darwin can be scrutinized, it doesn't matter if it is religious people that are doing the questioning. It doesn't matter how many bad anaolgies you and others use to change the subject or to feebly denigrate those that disagree with you, the civilized idea that took years to develop is free inquiry and freedom of expression and speech.
Free scientific inquiry is, I will agree, the bedrock of Western civilization.
Problem is, free scientific inquiry has nothing to do with ID. Free scientific inquiry reveals ID to be worthless, with zero scientific value. It's just not worth discussing on scientific terms.
Proponents of ID, having lost the battle of free scientific inquiry, have taken to lies and deception to advance their agenda. They cannot support ID in scientific terms, so they resort to fraud. They have lied about their true motives, as has already been shown in this trial. Their dishonesty reveals how they really feel about your "free scientific inquiry."
The notion that evolution cannot be scrutinized is a creationist lie. Evolution is constantly scrutinized. It is constantly tested. Every new piece of evidence has the potential to refute evolution, but every new piece of evidence only reaffirms evolution's position as the only theory to actually address the evidence.
Free scientific inquiry is the best support that evolution could ever ask for, because for two hundred years free scientific inquiry has provided volumes of evidence to support it.
You and others are the thug at the classroom door. Please move.
One whose cloaked agenda relies upon deception has no claim to the classroom, period. We will not yield to lies.
It's funny, but the people defending ID have sworn under oath that it has nothing to do with religion. So how can making fun of them be religion bashing?
Your entire response is based on a falsehood. This argument is not laymen against scientists. It is scientists against scientists. The Intelligent Design idea was formulted initially by scientists that find Darwin lacking. Creationists joined in and they are free to do so, but they are not the source of the debate. Sorry, either you are misinformed or you intetionally misinform, one is forgiveable the other is not. The fu manchu thing doesn't flow it's just more bad prose. Having said all that creationsists have rights, equal rights. You and other do not have the right to burn them at the stake so to speak, to order them away. We went through all that centuries ago.
Are you standing by that as your impression of the complete definition of ID?
You guys are behind the times. About 6 months ago they arrested a woman in Grand Junction, CO (IIRC) for , well doing it with Rover. The only thing the stories didn't mention was whether the dog was smiling.
You can't wear stripes with plaid?? I'd better go and change my shirt.
Name a scientist behind ID who is not primarily motivated by religion.
That is funny! when you open your mouth and you bash religious people...than you bashed religious people. Very Clintonesque...religous bigotry in this country masks itself as, shall we say a highly evolved and nuanced point of view. The idea, by the way, not that it matters, that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion is true. True...sorry
It's perfectly acceptable, but only if you live in Cleveland.
The lack of evidence is actual evidence. In the case of evolution, the lack of a fossil record of transitional forms is actual evidence that transitional forms did not and do not exist.
Which life-forms, that exist today, do you think are transitional? Why is a transitional form, simply not a life-form? Why do evolutionists even have to bother creating the fiction of transitional forms?
The obvious reason is that without the propaganda of the existence of transitional life-forms, no reasonable person would believe in evolution.
Then if I say that the designer of life must have been a psychopathic sadist, I am merey commenting on the moral characteristics of space aliens, right? I cannot possibly be bashing religion.
Behe is the obvious answer.
Gotta live up to my tagline.